Distilling Expert Judgment at Scale
Frontier AI models are increasingly deployed on topics where the stakes are high and expert judgment is required, including healthcare, defense, finance, governance, and politics. We present a general methodology for distilling expert human judgment into automated evaluation systems that operate at…
Authors: Robbie Goldfarb , Andrew B. Hall , Jillian Fisher , Kathryn Salam , Matt Wilde
View a PDF of the paper titled Distilling Expert Judgment at Scale, by Robbie Goldfarb and 4 other authors
View PDF
HTML (experimental)
Abstract: Frontier AI models are increasingly deployed on topics where the stakes are high and expert judgment is required, including healthcare, defense, finance, governance, and politics. We present a general methodology for distilling expert human judgment into automated evaluation systems that operate at scale. Our approach assembles networks of domain experts and develops techniques for extracting not just their conclusions but their reasoning processes, encoding those processes into structured editorial standards that automated judges can apply continuously. We ground our approach in a long tradition of research on the nature of expertise and the conditions under which expert judgment is reliable and more effective than other approaches, and argue that independent, expert-calibrated evaluation is necessary not only on epistemic grounds but as a matter of accountability and public trust. We validate the methodology on AI news reporting as a first application domain. On source quality, two independent domain experts achieve Krippendorff's $\alpha = 0.83/0.69$ on a held-out test set when applying the editorial standards, and our automated judge reaches $F1 = 0.81/0.97$ against expert consensus. On neutrality, experts achieve $\alpha = .72$ on the test set, and the automated judge reaches $F1 = 0.86$ against expert consensus. Additionally, a controlled comparison shows that expert-calibrated judges substantially outperform uncalibrated frontier models on every source-quality metric, demonstrating that encoding expert reasoning is the critical step that prompt engineering alone cannot replace. We present this benchmark as a proof of concept for a broader evaluation infrastructure applicable to any domain where judgment matters and expertise is scarce.
Comments:
9 pages
Subjects:
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Cite as:
arXiv:2610.33233 [cs.AI]
(or
arXiv:2610.33233v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.33233
Focus to learn more
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Submission history
From: Matthew Wilde [ view email ]
[v1]
Fri, 23 Oct 2026 19:36:34 UTC (19 KB)
Full-text links:
Access Paper:
View a PDF of the paper titled Distilling Expert Judgment at Scale, by Robbie Goldfarb and 4 other authors
View PDF
HTML (experimental)
TeX Source
view license
Additional Features
Audio Summary
Current browse context:
cs.AI
< prev
next >
new
recent
| 2026-10
Change to browse by:
cs
References & Citations
SciX
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
export BibTeX citation
Loading...
BibTeX formatted citation
loading...
Data provided by:
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer ( What is the Explorer? )
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers ( What is Connected Papers? )
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps ( What is Litmaps? )
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations ( What are Smart Citations? )
Code, Data, Media
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv ( What is alphaXiv? )
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers ( What is CatalyzeX? )
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub ( What is DagsHub? )
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub ( What is GotitPub? )
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face ( What is Huggingface? )
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast ( What is ScienceCast? )
Demos
Demos
Replicate Toggle
Replicate ( What is Replicate? )
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces ( What is Spaces? )
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI ( What is TXYZ.AI? )
Related Papers
Recommenders and Search Tools
Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower ( What are Influence Flowers? )
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender ( What is CORE? )
Author
Venue
Institution
Topic
About arXivLabs
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? |
Disable MathJax ( What is MathJax? )
本文内容由 ai007 从公开渠道聚合,版权归原作者所有。若原文已删除或变更, 以原文站为准;本站存档仅为便于查阅而保留。